Call for Convention of States in Legislature

A growing contingent of legislators in the state House and Senate is seeking to pass an application for North Carolina to join at least 33 other states to call for a Constitutional Convention, not controlled by Congress in Washington D.C., but by delegates, or “commissioners,” of the states, with a goal of reining in the federal government in three key areas.

The legislation, being run concurrently in the House and Senate, would authorize a call for a convention of the states to adopt amendments to the U.S. Constitution to impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, limit the power and jurisdiction of the government, and impose term limits on Congress.

The call, if passed this session, would be valid until Dec. 31, 2026.

The push for the convention comes from the group Convention of States, which is focused on utilizing the second method for amending the U.S. Constitution laid out in Article Five, which says that “the Congress … on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof.”

Until now the 10 amendments in the Bill of Rights and the additional 17 passed since then have all originated with Congress and been ratified by the states, whereas in this case the states could write and approve the amendments, which would then be either ratified or not in the states. (The president has no formal role in any of these ways of amending the Constitution.)

State Rep. Dennis Riddell (R-Alamance) has joined the group of legislators sponsoring the bill, making North Carolina the 11th state to call for a convention after Arizona and North Dakota recently became ninth and tenth.

“I first heard about the Convention of States movement through a colleague of mine, Bert Jones, who is actually the lead on this,” Riddell said. “The more I looked into it, the more it appealed to my history teacher background and my citizenship responsibilities. I though this is what we need to do to rein in an out-of-control federal government.”

Riddell said the need for a convention of the states is long overdue, and that even above that there needs to be a national civics lesson about the way our government is supposed to work, with the majority of the power resting with the states. He said the convention is a step toward that, and he even went as far as to call it the duty of state legislatures to implement a convention.

“It gives us an opportunity to have what I think is a long-overdue, necessary civics discussion in our county,” he said. “We have a federal government that has broken outside of the boundaries of the Constitution, and the founders wisely put in this option as a means for the states to corral an obtuse, out-of-control federal government, and, if we don’t make use of this as state legislators, we are guilty of malpractice. They put this in our hands, if the federal government ever got into a place where the federal government was spending itself stupid, [with a] $20 trillion national debt, and trampling on the prerogatives of the state.

“So they in their wisdom put in an alternative, a second way, to amend the Constitution of the United States. Thirty-four is a high bar, but I think you can get 34 states to agree that a perennially unbalanced budget is a problem, that we need to intervene, as you do with a drug addict. It’s a means for the state to rein in a federal government that is engaging in self-destructive behavior that endangers all 50 of the United States.”

Riddell said fears that a convention could “run away” and drastically change the face of the nation are no more true for a convention of states than for amendments launched by Congress.

“There’s a built-in safeguard that the founders put in. Thirty-four states to call a convention is a high bar, 38 to approve is even higher, that’s why we’ve only had, not counting the first 10, 17 amendment since the founding of the country added to the constitution, That’s a pretty high bar, trying to get 38 states unified around an idea that will be good for the country’s longevity,” he said. “This is constitutional; it is in the original document.”

Riddell said that even if there are close to enough states to call the convention, that would likely spur action from Congress to get in front of the issues, but he hopes it wouldn’t stop there.

“I think we need a convention of states, just to show we can do it, and where the power truly lies. It’s in the hands of the people. It’s not in D.C., it’s not here in Raleigh, it’s with the people,” he said.

14 Comments

Dawn says:April 13, 2017 at 8:17 am

It’s about time. This has been something on the minds of citizens for the last 5 years or so.

We need term limits on Congressmen and Senators, limit the number of terms they can serve, get rid of lifetime pension for all but the president, get rid of lobbiests and paid favors, gifts and incentives (who seem to be running our country instead the elected representatives) and extremely important, have voter ID laws in place. India even requires voter IDs for their citizens. We also need ban to outside money from affecting state elections. Only the people living in any given state and businesses operating in that state should have a say in the legislature of that state. North Carolina fell victim to outside election manipulation.

If our government is to be “of the people, by the people and for the people,” we have to actively take our government back.

Ww love Rep Riddell. He speaks the truth. Reps Jones, Millis, Riddell, Setzer,
Clampitt, Conrad, Iler, Malone, Rogers (my Rep), Szoka, White, Williams and Yarborough are truly working hard to get this resolution pushed through the House. It is a blessing to have them on our side. An amending convention is long overdue. Colonel George Mason realized that in the future we would need that protection because he knew Congress would become corrupt a long with the President and judges. He was right. Look where we are now. Madison wrote in Federalist 43: It guards equally against that extreme facility which would render the Constitution too mutable; and that extreme difficulty which might perpetuate its discovered faults. It moreover equally enables the General and the State Governments to originate the amendment of errors, as they may be pointed out by the experience on one side, or on the other. And in Federalist 85 Hamilton wrote that part two of Article V would serve as a barrier “against the encroachments of the national authority”. We are there. Let’ get it done.

If Congress does not follow the Constitution now, how is changing it going to make any difference? There is no convention of states, there is only a Constitutional Convention. A full blown convention which cannot be limited by the states or Congress. This is why it is to be used as a last resort. This is why there have been calls for an Article V Convention about every fifteen or twenty years since the founding of this country, none have been held. Once a convention is called, the Delegates control it and your Liberty is at risk. Who would you send with enough knowledge to protect your freedoms? I don’t support this, we don’t need it, and it is unnecessary.

Speciale… Congress is following the Constitution now.. as interpreted by the Supreme Court. A convention of states is NOT a constitutional convention. The reason there has not been a convention is because the requisite 2/3, i.e. 34 states, have not submitted an application for the same topic(s). Furthermore, any proposed amendment MUST still be ratified by 3/4 of the state legislators…i.e 38 states. This means it only takes 13 state houses out of 99 to block a proposed amendment. So no, our liberty is not at risk w/ a convention of states.. it is however at risk w/ the status quo where Congress and the Supreme Court continually usurp our rights and make the States subjective to the Federal government.

Representative Speciale, I don’t mean to be disrespectful, but you have it all wrong. It can be limited. And the resolutions WILL be limited to three subjects that can be discussed at Convention and only three. It is limited to anything that would impose fiscal restraints on the federal government. Let’s get some actual valid numbers from the federal government. Then second is power or jurisdiction limits on the federal government. You cannot expand federal government’s power. You can only limit it. Term limits on bureaucracies. These people are in there for 40 years in some cases. And finally, what about term limits? Also, I would love to see an education amendment here in NC.

There is a convention for proposing amendments. A Convention of States. The reason none have been called is that they were not worded the same. Now they are. Please lend us your support, Representative.

The purpose of proposing amendments through the Convention of States, Rep. Speciale, is NOT to make Congress or anyone else in the central government keep their oaths to the Constitution. It is to give Us, the People, recourse for when they don’t. Because as of right now, what can we do besides cast one vote every few years? How’s that worked out so far? It makes no difference who We send to Washington. Democrat, Republican, it all winds up the same. More government. More taxes. More debt. Less freedom.

What in the world makes you think it cannot be limited? I would ask what convention has ever been held that has exceeded the authority given to its delegates by its authors, except for two things: 1) You would definitely talk about 1787, which as a public historian of the Founding era I would then have to refute in excruciating detail. 2) You wouldn’t have any idea that we’ve had not one, but 38 other documented cases of conventions between the States and that not one of them has ever “run away.” On top of that, you yourself, Rep. Speciale, are intimately involved in a convention between the States that has met every year since 1892 (except 1945) and has never “run away.” Take a look at HB 320, Revised Uniform Athlete Agents Act. It is their work product. In 1991, on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of the Uniform Law Commission, the North Carolina General Assembly issued a congratulatory commendation to its Uniform Law Commissioners for their faithful service. Two of the individuals named are still serving today. Ask Senator Randleman to show you her copy of it – the one I handed to her.

Who would I send with enough knowledge to defend my freedoms? I’m so glad you asked! I would have Raleigh choose an all-star team led by either a member of either House or by one of the Commissioners we already have, who is familiar with the type of parliamentary procedures likely to be used in convention. The team would also include any of the finest minds North Carolina can muster in the areas of fiscal responsibility, Founding-era history, Constitutional history, Constitutional law, and government oversight. I would issue a commission from the legislature that holds them liable for recall and felony incarceration if they violate their commissions. I would also monitor the convention closely to ensure that they are acting in accordance with that commission. I would also have them vote “no” on anything that manages to get proposed in convention that falls outside the scope of the call to convention. I would also vote against ratification of any proposed amendment coming out of convention that I didn’t like.

The very fact that you asked who can be trusted to be sent belies your belief in the assertion that there are no Jeffersons or Madisons today. I respectfully beg to differ. All one has to do to be conversant in the wisdom of the Founders is to READ WHAT THEY WROTE. Contrary to popular opinion, we are actually in BETTER shape today than we were in 1787 in terms of the number of people conversant in these ideas. We are better educated than the population at the time, ESPECIALLY on the subject of federalism. Why? Because we now have ready access – all 10 million of us – to all the documents the Founders ever produced. Not so back then. They accepted the Constitution largely on faith unless they were lucky enough to follow the Federalist debates in the newspaper. There are no Einsteins today either. No sir. Instead, there are Hawkings! The same is true in every field of human endeavor, and this one is no different. The only way we fail to avail ourselves of our culminated expertise is to limit the pool of eligible commissioners to part-time State legislators who are also full-time citizens and sports fans who never read a history or philosophy book in their lives. I’m sure they’re very nice people. But they aren’t the only choices for delegates.

The reason we’ve never held a convention isn’t because the people at large or the legislatures feared a mythological, unprecedented runaway. The reason it’s never been called is because in no case have 2/3rds of the States applied for a convention for the same topic. If that weren’t necessary, we would already have had 11 of them. Because Congress has no choice in the matter. Two thirds apply, Congress SHALL call the convention. It is not a convention of delegates. It is not a convention of citizens. It is not a convention of electors. The Founders knew what they meant when they wrote about the convention process. They didn’t even have to ask each other, or deliberate it when Mason pointed out that the States lacked the means to initiate amendments. They collectively smacked themselves in the forehead, said, “Duh!” and put it in there. No debate. No objection. Unanimous. Immediate. The ONLY such motion to pass in this way. But if you require proof that in Article V they referred to a convention of States and not of anything else, refer to the very first application for the same under the brand new Article V: an application of the State of Virginia on May 5, 1789. Check out the end of the second to last paragraph: “Happily for their wishes, the Constitution hath presented an alternative, by admitting the submission to a convention of the states.”

Respectfully, Representative, if the North Carolina delegates run the convention, YOU will have failed utterly in your responsibility.

The term Constitutional Convention was coined 100 years after the birth of the Constitution, by constitutional scholars having no reason to call it anything else. The catchy phrase was soon referenced in law books, court cases, encyclopedias of court cases, and ultimately in law dictionaries. But law dictionaries are not meant as definitive or citable sources of meaning; just ask George Mason University Law School. But if you insist that the term’s definition is important, you must also conclude that it doesn’t apply to anything authorized under Article V. It is defined as a duly elected body called for the purpose of framing, revising, or amending its constitution. None of those verbs is found in Article V, which empowers the body to PROPOSE only. I challenge you to find any dictionary that equates the meaning of any of those four verbs.

Perhaps you’ve heard that Article V is only for “correcting defects” or “amending errors” in the Constitution, as Hamilton and Madison, respectively, said once. Very well. Does the Constitution contain errors? Several kinds, in fact. One is the improper use of commas in the 2nd Amendment. But no one proposes to correct that in a convention. What did Madison mean by “error?”

In Federalist 43, he offers this eighth note on Article V: “That useful alterations will be suggested by experience, could not but be foreseen. It was requisite, therefore, that a mode for introducing them should be provided.”

“It guards equally against that extreme facility, which would render the Constitution too mutable; and that extreme difficulty, which might perpetuate ITS DISCOVERED FAULTS. It, moreover, equally enables the general and the State governments to originate the amendment of errors, AS THEY MAY BE POINTED OUT BY THE EXPERIENCE on one side, or on the other” (emphasis added).

Useful alterations suggested by experience, Representative. And what has our experience suggested? Is this really a necessary step?

Experience has shown that the lack of explicit definitions of the Preamble’s benign “general welfare” and Article I’s “interstate commerce” clauses, for example, are defects exploited by an overreaching federal government to gather immense power unto itself not granted in the Constitution. By amending these errors, We, the People, can indeed “reign in the federal government.” Nothing has been misrepresented.

Experience has shown that the lack of term limits is a defect enabling men and women of good character to succumb to unbreakable relationships developed over decades enmeshed in the special interest money machine, the ambitious to pursue ambition for its own sake, and the avaricious to aspire to personal wealth through a lifetime of federal “service.” George Washington hoped his example of resigning his office would be followed as the proper course, and for almost 150 years it was. Until it wasn’t. The 22nd Amendment corrected this error. The very fact that a deeply powerful special interest money machine exists at all is testament to the oversight of allowing individuals to remain in place for 40 years or more. Its tentacles require time, money, and persistence to ensnare people of character and principle. Remove time from the equation and that aspect of the problem will disappear. California’s experience suggests it may reappear in other forms; those too may be addressed or prevented by amendment if other means fail.

Experience has shown that the lack of fiscal restraints imposed on Congress is a defect exploited by those claiming federal responsibility to the constitutionally undefined concept of “general welfare” to spend ever more nonexistent money regardless of who is entrusted with the Congressional purse strings. TWENTY. TRILLION. DOLLARS. DEBT. Rather than Securing the Blessings of Liberty, We, the People, have thereby enslaved all posterity yet unborn, who already owe far more than they may earn in any lifetime. The explicit purpose of the Constitution itself, therefore, demands amending this error.

Experience, Representative, has shown that Madison was absolutely correct when he supposed in a letter to Jefferson on October 17, 1788, “that a succession of artful and ambitious rulers may by gradual & well timed advances, finally erect an independent Government on the subversion of liberty.” To guard against this eventuality, he favored AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION by adding a Bill of Rights. For a time, it was adequate to protect Us, the People, against the subversion of liberty. Until it wasn’t. The primary function of all bureaucracy, today as in Madison’s day, is to justify its own existence. Once created, no bureaucracy has ever gone away. Instead, it grows. Did you know the Department of Education has its own militarized police with quasi-SWAT expertise?

Speciale… you are certainly entitled to the opinion that an Article V Convention is “unnecessary,” but by your own words, if an attempt is made every 15 or 20 years, wouldn’t that seem to imply that there are those Americans (many hundreds of thousands) who feel differently?

And you would do well to check your facts before making naked assertions, particularly with regard to documented history. There have been at least 9 conventions of states held since the Constitutional Convention of 1787. All of them were limited. The sky did not fall.

The Constitutional Convention that created our current constitution is very different from an Article V convention that is called under the authority of the current Constitution. In fact, if we really wanted a completely new constitution (as some people claim this is about), we wouldn’t need to use Article V at all, because that is an extra-Constitutional action. The purpose of using Article V in the first place is to place it UNDER the authority of the current Constitution and specifically state legislatures.

There are a number of firewalls that constrain this process:
(1) the subject matter of the convention is specified by the state applications
(2) the delegates are selected and authorized by the state legislatures
(3) any amendment that does not fit under the specified subject matter would be declared non-germane by the convention parliamentarian
(4) a state legislature has the power to recall a delegate who strays outside of his authority (pursuing non-germane topics)
(5) a non-germane amendment could be subject to litigation, and it increases the likelihood that Congress would not send it to the states for ratification.
(6) ULTIMATELY, 38 states need to ratify any proposal

It is clear from historical records that an Article V convention is intended to be limited to a specific topic. The idea of an open-ended convention is an urban legend that needs to be laid to rest.

We the People and state legislatures can make a difference. I fully support this exploding movement to bring power back home to where we live an work. Tired of DC getting rich by putting our children and grandchildren in debt. 7 of the richest counties in the country now surround DC. Stop federal overreach, limit federal regulations, and end corruption. Tell your state reps in Raleigh to join the growing team. 10 states are already on board (AK, AL, AZ, FL, GA, IN, LA, ND, OK, TN). Put DC on notice. Article V is completely safe. NC has already passed Article V Convention of States applications 3 times in the past. 38 states (both houses) are necessary to approve each amendment proposal after the convention.

I support the Convention of States Project and hope the resolution passes in North Carolina. I am grateful to our wise founding fathers for including Article V in the US Constitution so that We the People can have a remedy when the federal government gets too big. This is the only way we are going to restore our country and return to the rule of law.

I don’t know of any other solution to some of the problems I see – the complete fiscal mess, the seemingly infinite power of the bureaucracy, the ability of the Supreme Court to legislate by fiat. All three branches of government are dysfunctional and unconstitutional – in terms of the intentions of the Framers – although as Gary Thomas said, the Constitution has been misinterpreted to destroy much of the separation of powers that we see.

The Federal Government will obviously not fix itself. The States are the only way to stop our “runaway government”. I fear that much more than the unfounded fear of a runaway convention.
The Revolutionary War was fought over Taxation without Representation. I submit that our National Debt – now approximately $60,000 for every man woman & child in America, falls into this category. My grandchildren (who have yet to enter kindergarten) cannot file bankruptcy for this debt. How can I leave them in this condition?
This is the most important legislation to be introduced in my lifetime. I urge everyone to support Convention of States and be part of the history to save our great nation.